“If one does not approach the com­men­tar­ial lit­er­a­ture with a crit­i­cal eye, one would be trapped. Unfor­tu­nately many are. In fact, I had to remove a few pages from the man­u­script of Con­cept and Real­ity on Ven. Nyanaponika’s request”.

I’m dis­ap­pointed to hear that, as Con­cept and Real­ity had already become my favourite com­men­tary on the Bud­dhist teach­ings. There are some delight­fully under­stated crit­i­cisms of the tra­di­tional views in the book, and I won­der what we have lost in the edi­to­r­ial process at the hands of Ven. Nyanaponika Thera, an undoubt­edly very learned yet quite con­ser­v­a­tive scholar. When I express my dis­may, Bhante Ñāṇananda adds that now he tends to agree with Ven. Nyanaponika.

“I did it unwill­ingly, but later on I also thought it may have been too much as it was my first book. Per­haps what is left is quite enough. The mes­sage still gets through. Some of that I could restate in the Nib­bāna ser­mons as I had the back­ing of my teacher.”

This teacher is Ven. Matara Sri Ñāṇārāma Mahathera, then abbot of the Nis­sarana Vanaya and an illus­tri­ous elder of the Sri Lankan for­est tra­di­tion. I ask Bhante what the response of the Sangha was when those con­tro­ver­sial ser­mons were delivered.

“Apart from a very few, the oth­ers didn’t really under­stand. Some went around crit­i­cis­ing, call­ing me a heretic. For­tu­nately it didn’t get out of hand thanks to the teacher. But then some oth­ers like Ven. Khemā­nanda were very appreciative.”

Our dis­cus­sion moves on to Ven. Ñāṇavīra Thera. I won­der what influ­ence this rad­i­cal monk had on Bhante Ñāṇananda, but I can’t muster enough courage to ask directly. So I just let him speak on his views.

“It is true, Ven. Ñāṇavīra made a start. But I think he went to an extreme in his crit­i­cisms, until his fol­low­ers were drop­ping even the use­ful things. And he failed to make the nec­es­sary dis­tinc­tions between saupādis­esa and anupādis­esa Nib­bāna ele­ments. That led to an ide­al­ized view of the noble dis­ci­ple. And now there is a lin­eage of ‘Ñāṇavīrists’ who fail to see any­thing beyond Ven. Ñāṇavīra’s views. They are sim­ply idol­iz­ing him.”

As Ajahn Chah said " Some things are true but not right, others are right but not true!"

[1] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[2] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[3] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

[4] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[5] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[6] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings."

— MN 58

And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

pegembara wrote: Point is Ven Nanananda and Nyanaponika may not have been as different in thought as it would appear. Not doing the right thing is sometimes the correct action. " Some things are true but not right, others are right but not true!".

[1] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[2] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

{I’m dis­ap­pointed to hear that, as Con­cept and Real­ity had already become my favourite com­men­tary on the Bud­dhist teach­ings. There are some delight­fully under­stated crit­i­cisms of the tra­di­tional views in the book, and I won­der what we have lost in the edi­to­r­ial process at the hands of Ven. Nyanaponika Thera, an undoubt­edly very learned yet quite con­ser­v­a­tive scholar. When I express my dis­may, Bhante Ñāṇananda adds that now he tends to agree with Ven. Nyanaponika.}

[3] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

{“I did it unwill­ingly, but later on I also thought it may have been too much as it was my first book. Per­haps what is left is quite enough. The mes­sage still gets through. Some of that I could restate in the Nib­bāna ser­mons as I had the back­ing of my teacher.”

This teacher is Ven. Matara Sri Ñāṇārāma Mahathera, then abbot of the Nis­sarana Vanaya and an illus­tri­ous elder of the Sri Lankan for­est tra­di­tion. I ask Bhante what the response of the Sangha was when those con­tro­ver­sial ser­mons were delivered.

“Apart from a very few, the oth­ers didn’t really under­stand. Some went around crit­i­cis­ing, call­ing me a heretic. For­tu­nately it didn’t get out of hand thanks to the teacher. But then some oth­ers like Ven. Khemā­nanda were very appreciative.”}

[4] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[5] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[6] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings."

— MN 58

And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

pegembara wrote: Point is Ven Nanananda and Nyanaponika may not have been as different in thought as it would appear. Not doing the right thing is sometimes the correct action. " Some things are true but not right, others are right but not true!".

Well, of course. Ven Nananda has some interesting opinions about how to interpret the suttas, which are different from Vens Nyanaponika, Bodhi, the Commentators, etc. Claiming that one or other is "right" or "wrong", is, in my opinion, missing the point. Their analyses are all extremely useful aids to my own analysis and practice.

pegembara wrote: Point is Ven Nanananda and Nyanaponika may not have been as different in thought as it would appear. Not doing the right thing is sometimes the correct action. " Some things are true but not right, others are right but not true!".

This statement by Ajahn Chah does not make any sense in this context. Also, it is an argument to lie.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

At one time I went to see a teacher who said that we don't need the discipline or the Vinaya rules: "All you have to do is be mindful. Mindfulness is enough." So I went back and told Ajahn Chah, and he said: "True but not right, right but not true!"

Examples of things that are true but not right -?from the Theravada viewpoint.

Lin Chi Zen Master said, “If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha. If you meet a Patriarch, kill the Patriarch.” Zen Master Seung Sahn says that in this life we must all kill three things: First we must kill our parents. Second, we must kill the Buddha. And lastly, we must kill him! http://www.kwanumzen.org/1997/kill-the-buddha/

One freezing winter day, Tan-hsia took the wooden Buddha statue from the altar in the temple in which he was staying, and used it to make a fire. The resident priest came by and saw him doing it. "How can you burn up my Buddha?" he asked. "To get at the sacred remains," Tan-hsia answered and poked at the coals with a stick. "How could there be any sacred remains in my wooden Buddha?" the resident priest asked. "Then let's burn the two others too," said Tan-hsia. http://primejunta.blogspot.com/2011/02/ ... uddha.html

And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.